Saving The Women And Children First Is a Myth

[Anonymous]

Just about everyone has seen or at least heard about the infamous Titanic sinking and this notion that noble chivalrous men gallantly stepped aside and allowed women and children to board the minuscule amount of life boats that were actually available and working on the sinking ship. I mean, we'd like to believe this, especially women and children, that in times of crisis, men would step aside and allow the women and children to live, but the reality both back then and now, is not the myth and legend that the re-telling of the story of the Titanic would have you believe about disasters in general.

Did more women and children survive the sinking of the Titantic, oh absolutely. They survived at a rate of 75% to that of the men's 17%. There is no denying that, but this wasn't because men didn't try to board the boats. This was more a function of the crew at the muster stations threatening and beating back the men who tried to board rather then did all the men just step aside and let the women and children live. There is a pretty big difference between wanting to save them and being told you in essence, have to let them live or else.

But that was then, what about now? Do ships, planes, and other vessels actually maintain or adhere to this policy of women and children first? The answer is a resounding, hell no! Let's think about this...say you, a man, and I a woman are both traveling alone and our ship starts to sink. You don't know me among the other hundreds of passengers, we've never met, you have your family you want to live for and I have mine...do I think for a second that you aren't going to do your best to get back to them in the same way I'd want to get back to mine? The reality of today's travel is...we should have enough vessels for everyone to escape to safety on, but when push quite literally comes to shove, it's every man for himself, or at the very least, every man for himself and his own family.

Economists Mikael Elinder and Oscar Erixson from the University of Uppsala in Sweden have studied 18 maritime disasters that took place between 1852 and 2011...they reveal[ed] that women and children only enjoyed a better outcome than men when the Birkenhead (which killed around 400 people) and Titanic (which killed some 1500 people) went down. In every other case, men had the advantage, with an average survival rate of 37 percent compared to 27 percent for women and 15 percent for children.

Also a great myth is the crew and the captains going down with the ship or helping every last soul evacuate before saving themselves. Oh no, my friends, crews of ships survive at rate of about 61%..which is the highest level of survival among all persons aboard and if you think the Brits are more gallant that all the other riff raff, you may be surprised to learn that men survive more on British ships over that of women, than on non-British ships.

Me personally, I'll not judge a man ahead of me in line for a lifeboat as long as he is as orderly as possible if conditions are relatively calm at the time of us trying to depart. Now if he's pushing people aside and climbing over people, that's a problem outside of the ship is literally going down and everyone is clawing and clamoring frantically for their lives.There is no real precedent on paper that says women and children first. There is no drill you practice aboard a ship that calls for all the women and children at the front and men towards the rear because ships are supposed to have enough life boats for all passengers unlike the Titanic or the Birkenhead ship disasters. But if a ship goes down tomorrow, are women and children more likely to survive over that of men, the answer is no unless you have a captain or a crew that somehow attempts to restrict or prohibit men from boarding lifeboats ahead of women and children.

[Anonymous]

Nothing is ever cut and dry. The exact numbers of those who survived the titanic is not known but the number varies between 701-7-13. According to the source I am looking at...

Crew and passengers:
Total number of adult women: 434
Total number of adult women died: 110
Total number of adult women who survived 324

Total number of children: 112
Total number of children who died: 56
Total number of children who survived: 56

Total number of men: 1,680
Total number of men who died:1,357
Total number of men who survived: 323.

So, roughly the same total number of men and women survived but there were almost 4 times the amount of men on board than women. What's more, higher percentage of male crew-members survived compared to percentage of male passengers.

On passengers alone 74% of adult female passengers survived, 50% of children, and 16% of adult men passengers.
On staff and crew members, 91% of female crew members survived compared to 21% of male crew members.

Then breakdown gets crazier once we bring class in.
Female first class 97% of them survived and 100% of the female servants survived. 7 total first class children, only one passed away leaving it at 86%. 32% of male first class survived 17% of the male servants in first class survived.
Second class survival: Female-86%, Children 100%, males 8%.
Third class survival: Female-49%, Children 31%, males, 13%.

[Hidden_P]

Oh I love this

[PrincessPie]

"There is no denying that, but this wasn't because men didn't try to board the boats. This was more a function of the crew at the muster stations threatening and beating back the men who tried to board rather then did all the men just step aside and let the women and children live."
When you know you're going to die and your life is in danger people will do anything to survive.. and mostly men do put themselves in danger trying to protect those who they love anyway.
It wasn't just women and children also rich people who got first choice of the boats. I'm confused what this is trying to say to be honest lol.

[PrincessPie]

In the 2012 attack at movie shooting in Colorado
4 boyfriends died saying there girlfriend...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zclLbLyruPA

[hellionthesagereborn]

Nope. In fact few men attempted to board the boat, in fact I believe their is only one incident where a man tried to board a life boat and he was viciously beaten by not the crew but by the male passengers who immediately threw him off. So that is factually incorrect. Further the so called study picked 18 downed ships in a 160 year time span. Their where 18 shipwrecks not related to war in 1852 ALONE. Their is a reason they chose the number they did and in their study they left out the two most prominent occurences. It wasn't a study, its not even a good propaganda piece. Between 1850 and 1900s is well over a hundred. That's called a crap study. However even that aside their study is flawed because it ignores several major factores, one being it did not determine whether or not the drill was called (a glaring flaw), it ignored the fact that the crews where entirely male thus more men surviving doesn't say anything if their are more men to begin with, it did not account for how the ships where damaged like for instance the titanic where the only reason why 100 women died was because they where on the lowest deck which was cut off and flooded preventing them from being able to reach the top deck in time, or whether or not the men survived because again, they where more likely to be topside but also because they have greater insulation and muscle strength meaning they where more likely to survive exposure then women. Its not even worth claiming its a study as it was clearly designed with a singular purpose i. e. to "prove"(I use the term loosely) that the Birkenhead drill (women and children first) was not true (the fact that they where feminist and thus had a vested interest in this not being true to uphold their own ideological beliefs should also be taken into consideration). This is utter bull. We can actually prove it because of the simple fact that its still a thing to this day. In Covington Kentucky when a floating restraint broke off its moarings they initiated women and children first when they where rescued. The same thing happen with the downed flight 1549 where again, women and children first. So again, we know that this is inaccurate. It may not be law, but it absolutely is biological instinct as we are wired to prioritize both women and children, men in our society are disposable.

[sjoes006]

I love it when takes like these provide background for why the take came to be and source of info. As a pilot, not by trade but recreation, we learn about regulatory requirements for flying over large bodies of water. The Titanic did indeed change laws for passenger vessels on how many life boats a ship must carry.

"The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), an international maritime safety treaty, sets the safety standards for cruise ships... SOLAS regulations require each side of cruise ships have enough lifeboats to accommodate 37.5% of the total number of persons on board (passengers and crew), 75% in total. Inflatable or rigid liferafts must accommodate the remaining 25% of passengers and crew. (SOLAS, Section II, Regulation 21, 1.1)."

After the beached Mediterranean Cruise ship the following was suggested:

"The International Maritime Organization (IMO), who is responsible for SOLAS, should seriously consider upgrading the capacity of lifeboats and liferafts on each side of ships to overcome a reduced capacity if listing, fire or other problems reduce the number of lifeboats and liferafts which can be used and launched, in case a cruise ship must be abandoned."

Not every crew memeber on a cruise is safety crew or trained.

It's pretty well known men were trying to sneak off the Titanic and I'm pretty sure that was included in the Blockbuster film version. The antagonist tried to pay his way off or did.

no not every captain goes down with the ship, very few leave knowing they can save a life still remaining.

If they do they are black balled out of the profession.

Your essentially callings many of these esteemed service men and women cowards when the one assumption they accept in taking that position is that it may cost them their life to save that of others.

Slim chance but it is something they all are tested and aware of.

I've known too many pilots and flight attendants that were put to the test and proved to be the very last ones off that burning or sinking plane to not at least comment on this.

Ship captain or air captain it's the same code of ethics. And I'll be damned if you try and tell me flight attendants and flight crew weren't the last off that sinking plane during the ditch on the Hudson.

[thatguyfromtoronto]

Interesting piece, I never really thought about this in terms of trips by plane or by ship or even by train. Yes, in general, I do believe that it should be women and children first, it is the noble thing to do but I think for any human when you are staring death in the face, you will try to do anything to survive, kind of like the Walking Dead where you have certain people looking out for their own interests for survival.

That was in 1912, I think men were more chivalrous in the past then they are now, I think we live in very divided times now more so than before. How often do girls or women get pissed or upset that guys lack the empathy as a man to hold the door open for a girl or pull her chair out? Truth is, guys also feel a little torn that in tough economic times we're the ones paying and she's not (not always), but it's frustrating for both sides. This relates to your question because it comes down to mindset and how genders behave.

I can even go further, how do we act with each other today? Halloween just passed and I read posts by girls who take pride in dressing up as a slut for Halloween and I'm thinking, shouldn't females fight for women's rights be the top priority and not dressing half naked for an Instagram or Snapchat post? I hear women complaining nowadays that men are scum, but you ask these same women, what would you do if you saw a Muslim girl being attacked because she wore a hijab and I can tell you some of those women wouldn't give a shit simply because she's Muslim, therefore women don't even stand up for each other.

Again, the question you posted was good, it also got me thinking, how would we live if World War III occurred? We could be on the verge of that happening. Imagine if food, water or medical supplies were scarce? Anarchy would break loose the same way people on board the Titanic did in the early 1900s. Sorry for going off track but you mentioned lifeboats and other forms of things that can save more lives, I agree that on a ship there should be more lifeboats, having a safety vest is not good enough.

Even for air travel, I always thought there should be some sort of inflatable tube where people get in and deploy on to water or land without breaking in order to help save lives, that's just my 2 cents. If I did risk my life for a girl or a woman in order for her to get a second chance in life, may she live her life properly and as a noblewoman, for me, may God send me to heaven for that particular heroic deed.

[Kkaos]

Aircraft have evacuation slides in the doors and they have life rafts. Obviously people can become injured when going down a slide, however that's the price you pay when you've got to move hundreds of people out of a large aircraft that could ignite in any second.

[thatguyfromtoronto]

@Kkaos yep pretty much.

[Belgie]

Women and children first was a function of the times. The Titanic sank in 1912.

Guess what happened between then and now?

Women demanded equality. And they got it.

And that includes the right to be treated equally when the places in the lifeboats are up for grabs.

What are you complaining about exactly? That equality has a down side? Well don't worry, in tons of other cases, such as parental leave, courts granting custody, domestic abuse burdens of proof, and so on, women still maintain their privileged pre-equality status.

Whoop-de-doo.

[myTake Owner]

People like yourself clearly hear what they want to hear. I mean what does a custody hearing have to do with ships going down? I'm merely stating THE FACT that men and crew members are the highest level of survivors in maritime disasters dispelling the myth that it's always women and children who are put first. EVEN out of the 18 maritime disasters, then AND now, there has never been an official women and children first rule of abandoning ship---these were purely a function of just two crews, Birkenhead and the Titanic, and their captains and some men of their own free will, who saw that as the honorable thing to do. I also pointed out that I can fault no man or woman for trying to save their own lives or the lives of their family in life threatening situations. This isn't some "we should" save all the women and children first piece, it's merely dispelling the myth that saving them first is what actually happens as evidenced by survival rates.

[cavmanier]

So we know women and children dominated the boats. You're saying men tried to get on the boats but the crew (male obviously) threatened them. "Stay in that boat to die or I'll hit you" (wow that would work well huh). But seriously you showed no proof that that happened. Even if you don't have proof, what you said makes sense. Some men would of course try to save themselves as well. What you didn't point out is that a man could still favor a woman's safety more while saving themselves as well. The males could have easily been trying to compete with each other while supporting women dominating the boats. Regardless of all that women still got the benefit of living, and that is a function of the amount of men that supported them dominating the boats was more powerful than the rogues that may have resisted that happening. A crew wouldn't have been sufficient to stop all men. Plus the crew still supported womens' privilege. Sorry but weak argument.

[Nyx_85]

The captain of the Titanic ordered for women and children to be saved first. This was misunderstood by many of the crew to mean "women and children only" so they prevented male passengers from entering empty lifeboats.
"First Officer Murdoch, who was in charge of launching the lifeboats on the starboard side, took the order to mean women and children first. After loading the lifeboat with all women and children in his vicinity, he would then allow men to fill the remaining spots in the boat. However, Second Officer Lightoller, who was in charge of launching the lifeboats on the port side, took the order literally, and would not allow any men in the lifeboats regardless of any vacancies available."
www.premierexhibitions.com/.../truth-behind-women-and-children-first

[Nyx_85]

Sorry first officer.

[Nyx_85]

No wait captain. Yeah.

[cavmanier]

@Nyx_85 Who really knows what was said 90 years ago. It's been shown many times that women have been protected by men in these ways through out history though. For example how many women soldiers died in WW2? Zero did. Men have had certain advantages and so have women.

[cavmanier]

Even today 1/2 a day after a politician says something the media has already translated it into meaning something different. I question info from 100 year ago and even news from yesterday t b h. I'm not saying there is no truth in history though. I just don't trust it all.

[cavmanier]

@Nyx_85 But that was kind of my point. Women and childrens' lives where prioritized over men. This strongly discredits feminist idealists so I can see why they are trying to rationalize some possible logic so they can stay aligned to their poorly supported ideology. The red pill of logic becons them, but the power of the human mind to fight for their tribalistic side is powerful.

[Nyx_85]

Research shows in most maritime disasters men had the highest survival rate. Because they are typically the strongest and fought for their survival. When it comes to life or death there are no manners. If these orders hadn't been given, and misunderstood, on the Titanic no doubt the outcome would have been different.

[Nyx_85]

If I'm on a sinking ship I'll trust no one to let me get on a life boat ahead of them.

[cavmanier]

@Nyx_85 You took him out of context. He said, "The researchers noted that men, thanks to their physical strength, have better chances of surviving than women, barring self-sacrifice." I saw nothing of what you said about "and fought for their survival." By saying that you are implying they tried to save themselves at the expense of women and twisting his words to your liking.

Regardless the incidents taken could have easily been cherry picked to get result. There are no controls isolating why something happened either. Honestly I don't want to spend time analyzing things like this. They make me no money.

I would not be surprised at people trying to save themselves in a disaster. Women are still statistically the sex likely to get help in situations like these if people notice their despair. I don't see how anyone can argue women don't have that privileged. I know it contradicts feminism but that would be a huge rationalization.

[Nyx_85]

I took nothing out of context. You are. "fought for their survival" were my words. Barring self sacrifice means that men typically have a better chance of survival unless they choose self sacrifice.

"The new analysis of 18 maritime disasters where 15,000 people died shows only 17.8 per cent of the women survived versus 34.5 per cent of the men."

No it's not totally conclusive but a study of 18 maritime disasters from 1852 to 2011 involving 15000 passengers is probably a good start to make a fairly decent analysis. To get a more thorough idea you'd have to look up pretty much every maritime disasters involving female passengers compare the percentage of female-male passengers and then compare survival rates. Good luck with that. Am I saying NOBODY will give priority over a woman? No. But those person are more likely to be directly involved with the women they save. Not strangers. From what I've read people are most likely to help those with mobility problems.

[Nyx_85]

*priority to a woman

[Nyx_85]

" For example how many women soldiers died in WW2? Zero did. "

Not quite. Many countries had women in their military. Not in the same number as the men of course because 1: they couldn't take women with children and 2: they needed to keep things running back home. Most women were not allowed in front line combat roles but they still were close to the action is many aspects, for example as medics. They also had some female pilots. The Soviet Union allowed more women into combat roles.

"Several hundred thousand women served in combat roles, especially in anti-aircraft units. The U. S. decided not to use women in combat because public opinion would not tolerate it.[1] However 400,000 women served in uniform in non-combat roles in the U. S. armed forces; 160,000 were killed by enemy fire."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_World_War_II

[Nyx_85]

"Yet such figures, and their real-life inspirations, were all too swiftly forgotten when peacetime came. Many people were uncomfortable with the idea of women as armed combatants. In Europe, female partisans were sometimes not allowed to take part in victory marches alongside their male counterparts. Instead, women who had been accused of sleeping with or assisting the Nazi-Fascist enemy were paraded through the streets, their heads shaved and clothing ripped. As the Cold War era set in, the female combatant was increasingly explained away as an exception in a time of crisis."
www.cnn.com/.../index.html

[Nyx_85]

Most of the type of female privilege you talk about comes from what men give them. Wanting to save them. Not wanting them to get hurt. And so forth. Is that something that we are born with? Or is that a choice? The ONE major advantage we have is our differences in reproduction. The fact that one man could literally fathers hundreds of children if he wanted to yet a woman can't. Also men don't take 9 months to rebuild sperm... So in term of human survival it makes no sense to send a bunch of women of child bearing age off to die.

[Nyx_85]

*literally father

[Nyx_85]

Also the fact that of course as we all know women are the ones that carry offspring.

If a major crisis occurred and only a portion of the human population could be saved a percentage of that would be healthy men and healthy women of childbearing age. That is just common sense. In that circumstance I would rather be a man that survived though because being a woman that survived wouldn't be much fun.

[Nyx_85]

Not that it would be 'fun' for anyone... Everyone would have to work to pull their weight. But if you were able to you'd be expected to have babies. Which is generally much more fun for men.

[cavmanier]

@Nyx_85 Sorry I don't care enough about the topic to spend energy on it. Are you a feminist? Well just agree to disagree.

I understand and agree men gave women much of their privilege ~100+ year ago. My point is still true that women, even back then, had some advantages. Today I personally believe male advantages aren't astronomically higher than women. We aren't going to agree about feminism on the internet though. You and the asker don't want to change your beliefs because it challenges basic axioms. I've seen it many times with friends. People love to stay in their ideological cave even if they agree with the other person. New is too scary.

[cavmanier]

“The ONE major advantage we have is our differences in reproduction. The fact that one man could literally fathers hundreds of children if he wanted to yet a woman can't. Also men don't take 9 months to rebuild sperm... So in term of human survival it makes no sense to send a bunch of women of childbearing age off to die.”

You’re talking about the same homo “weed” sapien that is causing an animal extinction rate at 1,000 an accelerated rate due to habitat loss. The same race with 7 billion people. So it makes no sense to send women of childbearing age to die off? Wow. Yeah we better maximize human baby output because we might not make it.

[Nyx_85]

"Are you a feminist?"
Hah I love that question... Are you a MRA? Better yet are you a turtle disguised as a mongoose? Are you Santa Claus? LMAO. Are you are feminist...
I NEVER said women don't have advantages. Just like men have their advantages.
"Today I personally believe male advantages aren't astronomically higher than women."
That isn't what the topic was about though. You disagreed with this study because you think it was 'cherry picking'. I simply said I think it's enough to at least make a decent hypothesis. It's a start. If you want to go through the hassle of trying to look up every maritime disaster that involved both male and female passengers and do the math then go ahead but I can tell you right now that it's not easy. But what you've been doing here is stating personal beliefs. Your belief that women hold a certain privilege over men. That's FINE but don't pretend like it's anything else. I was talking about the study. You were not. Let's not get our wires crossed.

[Nyx_85]

"You’re talking about the same homo “weed” sapien that is causing an animal extinction rate at 1,000 an accelerated rate due to habitat loss. The same race with 7 billion people. So it makes no sense to send women of childbearing age to die off? Wow. Yeah we better maximize human baby output because we might not make it."

I never said that. Doesn't really make sense today but human nature and the desire to preserve the species isn't something that just dies out no matter how advanced our society gets or how populated we are. Testosterone literally causes more risky behavior. Fact. Women have less of it. Men are genetically programmed to take more risks than women while women are genetically programmed to be more wary. Men are also hardwired through evolution to protect their families. Of course it depends on the individual. But the desire to protect is strong enough that most men will not want to send hundreds of thousands of women off to die if they had the choice...

[Nyx_85]

Today women can make that choice for themselves.

Never said it makes sense for today or is fair but evolution and human nature doesn't really give a damn about our feelings.

But my point is when push comes to shove a man on a sinking boat may be inclined to save his family yet he may not be so quick to save a stranger. Be it man, women or child.

[cavmanier]

@Nyx_85 "I was talking about the study"

Is there an actual study? It looked more like a magazine article. Did they control for independent variables or did they just look for info that would reinforce their outlook? The answer seems obvious.

Yes obvious I said my belief. No I don't want to spend months analyzing maritime crashes lol. I don't care enough.

I wasn't trying to say instinct would "die." Regardless I have noticed women do tend to have a privilege of advocacy regarding safety for whatever reason. There is even data showing that men face significantly longer prison times for the same crime that women. I think it's a relatable situation. I'm not MRA, but I do think both feminists and MRA have some points. I'll just speak more for MRA's because they have like almost zero representation.

[cavmanier]

"Testosterone literally causes more risky behavior. Fact. Women have less of it. Men are genetically programmed to take more risks than women while women are genetically programmed to be more wary."

I've seen that same logic try to explain why men tend to have higher top end jobs like CEO's. I think it make sense actually. More men are really interesting in achieving on the top end. Of course sjw's want to evenly allocate success which I think is extremely naive and done for politically correct reasons.

I doubt testosterone explains why in almost every nation men have been the military. There's got to be more to it than that. I would agree testosterone may be related to more frequent individual violent situations, but I've seen women as being just as aggressive as men. They just tend to use other outlets for their aggression.

[cavmanier]

@Nyx_85
"But my point is when push comes to shove a man on a sinking boat may be inclined to save his family yet he may not be so quick to save a stranger. Be it man, women or child."

I think the dynamic of men advocating for womens' safety is most pronounced when there's a focus on cultural interaction versus if a person has extreme emotions of fleeing for their life. Of course most will prioritize themselves over a stranger. Cultural reasons caused the captain and crew on the titanic to prioritize women. And I suspect mostly cultural reasons would influence that kind of reaction in general. Of course fleeing overrides culture. If a person is around a group and calms themselves, they are more likely to advocate for women and children. Men would never be advocated for lol. It'd never happen. We are "supposed" to endure hardship.

[Nyx_85]

"I doubt testosterone explains why in almost every nation men have been the military."

Because that was the choice of those in charge of the military. At least for combat roles, which are only a small percentage. In fact 80% of military jobs are non-combat. Today they are allowing more women into combat roles are even inputting selective service for women. But well men naturally are better fighters. There may be women who are aggressive but that doesn't mean they can fight. Women with children or who are pregnant can't do much other than maybe desk jobs. So that kind of limits the amount of women that can realistically fight.

[Nyx_85]

As a man, save for physical and mental inabilities (FYI 71% of the US population isn't even fit enough for military service. I mean if some obese guy living in his mom's basement with bipolar and Autism thinks he's going to get 'drafted' he is being downright delusional), there isn't much holding you back from being a servant/ slave of the state.

[Nyx_85]

"If a person is around a group and calms themselves, they are more likely to advocate for women and children."

Likely and it like I said it probably stems from a primal urge to protect but I believe it likely far more prevalent in those who in a position of authority. But get a group of regular 'beta' panicked men together and you can have what happened on the Costa Concordia where they pushed past women, expectant mothers and children to get to the lifeboats first, despite other people trying to keep order. Also I'm sure many men on the Titanic fought to get ahead.

"Men would never be advocated for lol"

They have but just not in such extreme ways.

[Nyx_85]

"Is there an actual study?"

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3421183/

[Nyx_85]

"Regardless I have noticed women do tend to have a privilege of advocacy regarding safety for whatever reason."

And I think that is highly instinctual. Perhaps a bit cultural yes. But simply put women have babies. We carry them. It sounds unfair but we are somewhat less expandable when it comes down to simple reproduction. I believe it is MUCH MORE about protecting potential offspring and future generations than it is about protecting women. A young and healthy fertile woman (or a girl that will be fertile soon) is going to be a higher asset than an old woman who can't bear children. She will be more likely to be saved not just because she is female but because of her childbearing capabilities. Which yeah seems kind of archaic however old habits die hard. This is subconscious. Plus women's survival and self preservation instinct I believe is just naturally higher on average. Research shows women's brains react more to threats than men's do.
www.sciencedirect.com/.../S0006322304002148

[Nyx_85]

"There is even data showing that men face significantly longer prison times for the same crime that women."

This is true. Though it should be noted that every case is different and prison sentencing is highly dependant on each individual judge. You have a lot of older judges with old school ways of thinking and who may be more inclined to take pity on a woman. Also mother's tend to receive more leniency. My uncle is a criminal court judge (after being a crown prosecutor for years) and he's talked about this. I know of a case where a woman purposely got pregnant so they'd reduce her sentence. Women may also claim to be influenced by male partners or that they were acting out of self defense. Some say that statistically males are more likely to be repeat offenders which often affects their length of prison time. But also look into the fact that African American's receive longer sentences than white males for the similar crimes.

[Nyx_85]

I'm sure many of the 'explanations' people have for the gender gap in sentencing are similar to the explanations they have for the racial gap. "African Americans commit more crime." "They are more often repeated offenders" etc. But most of these statistics come from the US which has a problem with overcrowded prisons because 1: they incarcerate and give harsh sentences for crimes they shouldn't (i. e marijuana possession) and 2: many of those charged can wait years in jail for a trial and proper sentencing and judges will often set bail higher than the defendant can afford. Those in lower income brackets statistically commit more street crime. Also it's estimated that 2.3 - 5 percent of prison inmates are innocent, and some of them actually pleaded guilty on purpose.
Giving women the same sentences men face today isn't going to solve anything because many of those sentences are unfair for the men serving them. Sentencing should fit the crime not the gender.

[Nyx_85]

"I'm not MRA, but I do think both feminists and MRA have some points. I'll just speak more for MRA's because they have like almost zero representation."

I'm not either but the MRM like feminism isn't a perfect movement. No movement is. The MRM has existed since the mid 1800's and it was mostly began as a backlash to women's rights. It has grown throughout the years but is usually overshadowed by feminism. Ironically enough by many MRA's complaining about feminism. A negative spotlight is still a spotlight.

But many modern day MRAs (like many modern day feminists) have taken to being keyboard warriors than actual activists. There is a lot of misinformation (on both sides) and many MRAs complain that feminists/women play the victim yet many of them are doing the same exact thing. The thing is that social hierarchy has a lot more to do with privilege than gender does. Most of the disadvantages put upon men were imposed by other men of high social classes.

[Nyx_85]

Yet a lot of 'MRAs' like to act like men's disadvantages of somehow the fault of women. It's not women who send men to wars. It's not women who make men partake in dangerous activities. They state that men are the more often the victims of violent crime like physical assault, robbery and homicide but they are also overwhelmingly the perpetrators. Men account for 96 percent of all homicide perpetrators worldwide.
Then they'll point out male workplace deaths. Yes men make up most workplace deaths. Yet while it's perfectly ok to point out "There is no wage gap. Women choose lower paying jobs and work less hours than men" you can't tell them "Men CHOOSE dangerous jobs". And many feminist groups in the past pushed for women to be involved in dangerous male dominated fields. But none of that will change the fact that men and women often have vastly different preferences when it comes to career choices. And that has nothing to do with sexism.

[JudgmentDay]

I guess the first rule of thumb is always try to book a room or cabinet closest to the lifeboats in case something happens then? Otherwise, don't ever bother traveling on a passenger ship.

And this. "The reality of today's travel is... we should have enough vessels for everyone to escape to safety on, but when push quite literally comes to shove, it's every man for himself, or at the very least, every man for himself and his own family."

Indeed it is everybody for themselves in this dog eat dog kind of world.

[ScottSummers]

*Did more women and children survive the sinking of the Titantic, oh absolutely. They survived at a rate of 75% to that of the men's 17%. There is no denying that, but this wasn't because men didn't try to board the boats. This was more a function of the crew at the muster stations threatening and beating back the men who tried to board rather then did all the men just step aside and let the women and children live.*
Wow that is terrible, poor men wanted to fight for their lifes but they were forced to die? And no one can expect anyone to give up their life for random strangers. Would any woman give up her life to save a random guy?

[myTake Owner]

As with everything in life, it depends on the person. In all life threatening situations, there are heroic men and women who give up their lives to save others or put themselves in harms way for the benefit of others. This take is not to say, men never or women never let others go before themselves, just exposing the myth that women and children are the highest level of survivors in maritime disasters only, as the study can't speak toward plane, car, fire, other other disasters.

[Anonymous]

This MyTake wreaks of feminist bitterness... LMAO.

"This was more a function of the crew at the muster stations threatening and beating back the men who tried to board rather then did all the men just step aside and let the women and children live. "

Please provide proof of this ^^ WRT the Titanic.

Men in general do put women and children first in times of danger. I've seen it many times personally and seen the instinct take over in my father and even myself. That's not to say all men do it, and I would say that today many men have no interest in putting the safety of women they don't know before their own. Chivalry is dead, as it should be, and women like you are the reason for that. I say good riddance. Over the last 30 years or so women have destroyed and and all motivation for men to treat them as special. They are no longer special.

[freakyzeaky]

Where have all the good men gone? Not trusting your judgmental ass! haha! 😂

[Opinion Owner]

@freakyzeaky LOL, yeah. It's impressive how creative some of these women get in how they express their bitterness toward men.

[myTake Owner]

Read the statement you quoted very carefully. It doesn't say "no men" stepped aside. It's just not the vision of every single man just giving up their lives for the women and children that movie fiction writers would have you believe (even in the movie, they showed men 'jumping the line'). Men did try to flee for their lives as no one wants to die. You can't fault men for wanting to live like anyone else, but you've thrown the word "feminism" around just to throw it around, but have no real idea what it means.

You cannot argue with facts my friend, as much as you'd like to. Since you seem the sort not to believe someone, you are welcome to look up the 18 maritime disasters for yourself and see the survival rates of men over that of women and children. Chivalry is dead? Is it? You've said yourself "men in general do put women and children first in danger," yet you reject that premise a few sentences later with "many men have no interest in putting the safety of women they don't know...

[myTake Owner]

..."before their own." Youv'e done nothing here but confirm exactly what I said in the take, so that would make you the fictional "feminist" that you're tossing my way for no actual reason.

If you've never been in a life and death situation, you don't know what and how people will react. Even good people can freak out, and as I said in the take, they have families back home that love them too and they want to live for that----that to me is just as chivalrous as stepping aside for a stranger they don't know. I definitely don't believe chivalry is dead and I certainly have not destroyed it. I am surrounded by amazing examples of it in my family and friends which I am more than appreciative for. I think it is you who needs to stop believing in the myth that women destroy everything because there have always been and will always be good men and women on this planet as well as bad men and women on this planet, but to say all are bad, is selling a lot of people short.

[freakyzeaky]

I think what he means by "chivalry is dead" is that it is not as appreciated and so it isn't something men consciously think about. Some men are heroes and will throw themselves into the fire for others, especially women and children, but some men don't. The ones who don't probably don't feel obligated anymore, at least in the dating sense.

Personally, I like to be chivalrous sometimes, but not overly so.

Not sure what I would do in a situation like the Titanic. Panic and fear cause people to act completely different than what they think. That is why you get so many people saying "I would love the Zombie apocalypse, I would kick so much ass!', but if it really happened, I'm betting they would run like cowards. It is that fight or flight response and survival is a natural instinct.

[Opinion Owner]

That was quite the example of back peddling and deflection there. So let's take a step back and address what I said before moving on. I asked you to support your claim that the reason so many more women and children survived the Titanic disaster than men had little to do with men putting women and children first. So please do provide that evidence. I'll wait.

[myTake Owner]

Sigh..."In the Discovery of the Titanic," which you are welcome to read, as well as the several first person crew/passenger accounts, the ships crew purposefully put women and children first because there was a misinterpretation of the captains orders which was to put women and children first AND THEN men in the boats with empty seats left. There is evidence that boats were lowered with free seats that did not contain men, only women and children which I can assure you the men were there waiting to board but had been prevented from doing so by the crew of the ship. It is not 100% a noble honorable thing to only let women and children first IF you've been ordered to do so by the captain or at least they misinterpreted what he meant. That's different then saying, all the men of good and noble hearts just gracefully stepped aside... no they were literally prevented from boarding by certain crew members.

[myTake Owner]

Do I believe some men let women and children first simply because they thought it chivalrous and noble, of course I do. We see this in almost all manner of disaster where both women and men step aside or help someone else in harms way, but this fantasy idea that ALL the men sat there unprompted and just said save the women is not true at all, also evidenced by the fact that some boats on the Titanic did contain men and women and children where the orders by the crew were interpreted the right way.

[Opinion Owner]

You can assure me? Nice supporting facts there. You haven't provided proof because it doesn't exist. You and I both know that.

Look, I know who you are and I'm familiar with your sexism here at GAG. This MyTake was just other of your attempts to discredit men and make them look bad. Fortunately, most of the people here, including the women, saw right through it.

It's no myth that men have been sacrificing their lives to protect women and children since the dawn of time, and they still are today. It's incredibly childish and small of you to try to claim otherwise, and your motives for doing so are clear... feminist bitterness.

[Bananaman177]

But this is wrong. . .

There were some men who flew into a panic and tried to force their way onto the boats, but the vast overwhelming majority did not, and the ones who didn't, including the all-male crew, are the ones who held those panicking guys back and let the women and children board first.

So you're trying to basically paint the heroes and the villains with the same brush. I'd say that makes YOU one of the villains.

https://i.redd.it/gbfgklucjguz.jpg

[DonkeyRick69]

75% of women and children survived thst proves it's not a myth. As for men pushing to get a life boat why should 2nd and 3rd class passengers have to die.
61% of crew surviving sounds about right as they are outnumbered by passengers and are needed to row life boats.
This is the age of equality.

[myTake Owner]

Mythbusters already confirmed that two could fit on that stupid door frame, but then again, that was all movie fiction anyway.

That 75% survival rate was specifically for the Titanic, and not the 18 other maritime disasters then and now which show that men and crew survive more then women and children. It is also of note that crew were ordered to put women and children first and did, as evidenced by some boats lowered with empty seats, and only women and children. Men were purposefully being kept back by the crew from boarding boats rather then did the men all just nobly step aside and let the women and children go first because they misinterpreted the captains orders which said, put the women and children first AND then the men. Some were noble sure, but there is a difference between a man being noble and letting them go, and a man being told he can't board because you as crew were ordered to put women and children "only" on the boats.

[Anonymous]

"but this wasn't because men didn't try to board the boats. This was more a function of the crew at the muster stations threatening and beating back the men who tried to board rather then did all the men just step aside and let the women and children live. "

You think this is better? It's worse. At least if it was the former those men would have died out of their own choice. What men hate about it is society is literally pointing at them and telling them they get to die for their mere existence as the male gender. Yet you seem to think that's a good thing.

Oh and the doctrine is still very much alive today www.cbsnews.com/.../

[Anonymous]

I would let MY wife and children go first. However, some random girl or some random kids? No. The "women and children first" thing only makes sense when you're talking about YOUR woman and YOUR children. I mean, why the hell would anyone give their life for a random stranger? It is simply absurd to demand that someone gives up their life for some random stranger.

[Kkaos]

I'd do it if I felt like doing it, man, woman or children. However I'd never do it because society told me I should.

[Anonymous]

Whenever there is a disaster or some sort of tragedy. 99% of the persons saving or protecting others are men. So men usually step up in times of need compared to women mainly because of biology.

[MarkRet]

I remember that scene in Titanic where all the rich people were singing in a church service. When the Titanic started going down, it would have been an opportunity for these 'Christians' to show their true faith by making the ultimate sacrifice, but instead, they were the first ones to get into the lifeboats.

Personally, if I were there, I would have stepped aside to let someone else go.

[Anonymous]

The same can be said about so-called "refugees". The media portays them as helpless women and children from wartorn countries... when in reality they are grown men, of fighting age coming to conquer our nations with iPhones and self-sticks in hand.
cdn.images.express.co.uk/.../...e-stick-603511.jpg

[Political_dude]

Alright let's accept whatever you say. No chivalry was there. So what? Don't you think men and women did pay equal amount of money to board on that ship? Both of them had equal rights to get out of it. After reading your take it makes me feel like you're Feminist. So be it. It should be about Equality and not who gets out first.
Also can you prove any of you've said? We're is your source?

[hellionthesagereborn]

Her sources where the one study that she sited. Its a horribly flawed study (they looked at 18 shipwrecks in a 160 year time span starting in 1852 despite the fact that their where 18 shipwrecks in 1852 alone. Plus they did it based upon how many men survived which ignores the fact that the entire crew for these ships where male, more likely to be on top deck (thus if the hold fills up with water they where less likely to be trapped) had better insulation and strength making them more likely to survive exposure etc. as well as ignoring the two most prominant navel disasters, the titanic and the Birkenhead which both had women and children first policies).

[DanoMR98]

Yeah fuck women and children, I would be for myself if I was in the Titanic.

The fact that people defend the Birkenhead drill today only shows that throughout history, men have always been seen as disposable and worth less than women. They still are too.

[AynonOMouse]

Obvious feminist propaganda. It is still women and children first in society. Especially when it comes to assistance programs, homeless shelters, college funding, etc.
The country is sexist against men and it has been enforced by laws.

[YHL6965]

Hey, women wanted gender equality, they got it. I would still let a woman take my place in that kind of situation, but don't be surprised if I'm the only one to do this. We live in a self-centered society that has lost a big part of its moral code so the outcome isn't really surprising.

[castratedwhiteguy]

Are you joking? You are so ignorant of common history! FYI, the goal of traditional chivalry was to keep women and children safe from these tragedies in the first place. In fact, chilvery worked just fine until feminism destroyed our morals. Personally, I hope that GI Jane gets shot right in the ass by Jihadist!

[DanoMR98]

Chivalry was knight code, my man. Don't confuse politeness with some sort of overly esteemed standard of warming morals.

Fuck chivalry, why would I die first?

[DanoMR98]

*warmaking